Broadening Translation History by Including Absences and Failures. A Failed Proposal for Translation Policy: Insights from the Walloon Congress of 1905
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through the study of the failed attempt at translation policy outlined at the 1905 Walloon Congress (Liège, Belgium), this article seeks to illustrate the complex and paradoxical relationship between cultural minorities and translation policies, while emphasizing the importance of including absences and failures in the history of translation. What did not happen, was not translated, or failed for various reasons can constrain the emergence of socio-cultural reality, and prove relevant in understanding what, conversely, stabilized it in a sustainable way (Marais, 2023). After analyzing the language demands made during the Walloon Congress in the areas of justice, administration, and education, this article examines the delegates’ complex interactions and notable inconsistencies with respect to their translation management, beliefs, and practices. Finally, the study adopts both a vertical and horizontal relational approach, highlighting, on the one hand, competition between minority groups in heterogeneous and diglossic contexts—in particular the Walloon and Flemish linguistic minorities—and, on the other, the threats that official multilingual regimes, like their monolingual counterparts, can pose to a nation’s multilingual ecology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".